copy_generate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a key side-effect: it saves to a specific file path (rc-method/copy/COPY-SYSTEM.md), which adds context beyond the openWorldHint=true annotation. It also mentions the prerequisite screen inventory. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and provides useful behavioral transparency without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise (around 30 words) and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage order, and the third covers requirements and output. Every sentence provides necessary information without any redundancy, earning a top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, input requirements, and output destination. With no output schema, it lists the concrete deliverables and the save path, allowing an agent to understand exactly what will happen. It is complete for decision-making and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are already described clearly in the schema (project_path, screen_inventory). The description's mention of 'screen inventory' is redundant with the schema and adds no new details about parameter formatting, constraints, or relationships. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the structured input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates a full Content Strategy & Copy System with a specific list of deliverables (voice/tone, page-level copy, microcopy library, CTA matrix, SEO content map). It uses a specific verb 'Generate' and resource, and the mention of 'Call AFTER copy_research_brief' distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_iterate and copy_critique.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an explicit sequencing cue ('Call AFTER copy_research_brief') and states a prerequisite (screen inventory), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but the ordering and prerequisites are sufficient for typical usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.